AIBU to think if we need to politely ask men not to rape women (or men), then we don't want such people in the UK?

[bobbyydazzler]

Don't rape, sexually assault or make kissing noises' at people, asylum seekers warned in guidance about living in UK
UK arrivals have been told to treat women equally, not sexually assault partners or have sex with children in a new Home Office pamphlet. As well as the guidebook, a series of posters have also been designed by the government.

https://news.sky.com/story/asylum-seekers-warned-not-to-make-kissing-sounds-at-people-in-new-guidance-about-living-in-uk-13574744

There's a map here although it's GB News;

68,719 migrants lived in what the department calls "dispersal accommodation" by the end of the first quarter of this year...

GB News has examined the parts of the country whose streets and houses are home to the fewest illegal migrants and could be made to take in more...

On the South Coast, which received the infamous mega dinghy on Monday, Arun District Council has no migrant HMOs.

Just one asylum seeker lives in dispersal accommodation in Lewes.

There are just three in dispersal accommodation in Dorset...

Cotswold District Council houses no asylum seekers...

https://www.gbnews.com/news/migrant-hotels-labour-shuts-asylum-accommodation-mapped

Thanks for clarifying, ethnicity and nationality are not the same. I wonder how they’d record people with multiple nationalities? This isn’t as easy to collect as one may think. Country of birth doesn’t always denote nationality either….

If that’s true, what explains the huge differences in offending rates between different nationalities, in countries like Germany that publish the data?

They are all subject to German law. But some foreign nationalities offend at one-third of the rate of Germans and others at twenty times the rate of Germans.

It’s just not plausible that culture is irrelevant.

The difference is that, in Britain, treating women like animals is no longer normalised as it is in some places elsewhere.

If they had wanted to, British men in the past could have just never given women the rights they have now – they could have just kept marital rape legal, for instance, refused them the vote, continued to shame and consider women ruined for being raped, encouraged physical 'discipline' of wives, etc... But they listened to British women (and other men) and tried to create a fairer society.

Yes, low level misogyny is widespread, and there's far too much sexual violence, but it is considered an aberration by wider society, and not something normal and correct that a woman or girl should shut up and endure. The same cannot be said about many other countries.

There is a vast and obvious difference in the culture, and obviously that shows itself in how individual men are likely to treat women.

Some men from foreign lands have abhorrent rights for women and equality doesn't exist. Take India for example. There's a real 'rape culture' there and gang rape is common. I've been on the receiving end of African men who don't take no for an answer a few times. Yes, some British men also rape and treat women like shit, but if men are coming into this country from abroad and we're paying their way, at least have the decency to treat women with the absolute respect they deserve.

I can tell you now, if you're a young, attractive female and you're walking through Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester, I can almost guarantee that some of the young African immigrants who hang around there will stare at them at the very least, and catcall and harass as an addition. It's really not on.

I doubt they have records of country of birth (but should collect this: the more data of all characteristics of criminals we collect, the better we can manage crime). What they do apparently have but won’t release is crime data by nationality (so the “UK citizen” section would include naturalised citizens as well as those born here). One would hope they’d also captured separately people with dual citizenship? And since the MOJ already do publish the data by ethnicity presumably it’s in the same database so they could easily release it in a format where it can be cross referenced by both ethnicity and nationality, which would establish what many suspect which is that it is certain cultures causing higher offending rates (rather than the ethnicity of the person): the differences shown on the data by ethnicity are probably primarily the result of higher offending amongst certain ethnic groups due to either 1) there being more foreign nationals who have moved here from elsewhere within those groups, from countries with more violent and misogynistic cultures (hence also lower than average offending within some other ethnic groups where their culture actually is better than ours in this respect); and 2) British nationals within those ethnic groups with higher offending rates who have either naturalised or were born here but have grown up in culturally isolated communities where their parents/ grandparents etc also did not integrate into our culture properly, which applies to some ethnicities more than others.

Understanding this intersection of the data is essential for us to be able to identify the specific cultures which are particularly problematic.

What I don’t know is the purported grounds for the MOJ’s appeal against the ICO’s ruling that they must release the data for crimes by nationality. How, in a democracy, can there be any argument that we as the public should not have access to our country’s crime statistics? It’s shocking that they are attempting to repress this factual information.

It’s a bit reminiscent of the attempts to suppress the data about the effects of cousin marriage, the number of severely disabled children resulting from this and the costs to the NHS and other services of this being allowed to continue (on top of the abhorrence of deliberately subjecting babies and children to such miserable lives). And the prevalence of this is very specific communities.

I think even people like me who are very socially liberal and pragmatic about things are fed up now because of the Government refusing to level with the public and give us access to own data, collected by the public systems which we finance via our tax revenues, to serve us.

It’s completely unacceptable for them to try to abuse the legal system to withhold data from us in this manner so that we can discuss issues, hold our politicians to account and make informed voting decisions. You cannot have a functioning democracy if basic data impacting public services, tax, crime rates etc is withheld from the public.

I think nationality at birth would be the best option as you are right, multiple and born elsewhere isn't always captured correctly or in case of latter one doesn't mean nationality

I agree we need data. But we also need good data. Lumping all brown people into one category marked 'Asian', say, ignores huge differences.

Yes. The “other Asian” was ridicilulous - including everyone from Japanese to people from the Middle East!!

We need much more granular data, enabling us to look at the cross sections of the impact of ethnicity and nationality. Nationality is very specific so it cannot be used to mask huge cultural differences in the manner that the ethnicity data does (conflating people born here with many who will have just arrived). Yet nationality data alone wouldn’t distinguish between those who are fully integrated naturalised citizens, or those born here but who live in culturally isolated communities so don’t integrate for generations so should not be lumped in with the general “British” crime rates if we are trying to assess where the toxic and violent culture is coming from. Therefore, it’s essential that the MOJ release the full, detailed data in one table where it is split by both ethnicity and nationality so that it can be filtered and cross referenced and the impact of these various factors can be isolated.

I’m referring in my previous post to the data by ethnicity that the MOJ has released. It is the nationality data they are refusing to publish, which is ominous. A poster provided this MOJ data earlier so I added the final two columns to split it per capita because of silly comments on the thread about “but white British people commit most of the rapes” which would obviously be the case given they are 74% of the population!

While this data alone does highlight statistically significant differences, as you say it is nowhere near granular enough to show the true picture and we need the more granular breakdown from the MOJ with another column for nationality. And we need to see it for every category of crime. All of it should be public information, as should all data gathered by schools, the NHS and from all public services. Otherwise how is the public ever meant to make informed voting decisions?

There has been so many, an Afghanistan man in Dublin said he tried alcohol for the first time, she was 200 meters away and home. He bit her face and lips badly. Another man, grab a child after he was leaving a house party in an apartment complex , he was only joking 😳, he’s to be deported on his release, then there was the 10 year old in state care who randomly ended ip
on the grounds of an international protection hotel, he said he thought she was 15. Aye, sure you did.
Or the Somalian man who attached twins in Dublin, he’d never seen blonde twins, he wouldn’t have stabbed them with a bottle if he wasn’t so amazed to see blonde twins young ladies, he stabbed a passing man who stopped to intervene. The deliveroo driver who sexually assaulted a 5 year old. That’s just in Dublin.
It is no wonder they need a pamphlet explaining how to avoid rape.

Not to mention that for almost 30% of both prosecutions and convictions, no identifiable ethnicity was recorded at all! Presumably the nationality data has to include that information for every case so would doubtless give a more accurate picture of the situation.

I have just looked it up and allegedly the MOJ’s grounds for its defence are 1) that it would cost too much to produce the data; and 2) that it risks identifying individuals, breaching data privacy.

I can’t see how either of these grounds will be upheld. The first is quite a shocking assertion: the data should be recorded in the central database so it’s literally just a case of running a report. If they genuinely do not have the data easily available then the Government is completely failing in its responsibilities to us as citizens because how can crime possibly be tackled effectively if they don’t even know what’s going on? So if this assertion by the MOJ were to be true (i.e. that they don’t even know the identity of whom is committing which crimes) then that is actually a scandalous failing of our justice and policing system. The second assertion is just plain nonsense because just like with all public data, usually there is a de minimis limit and in any case all data is anonymised AND all prosecutions are a matter of public record, anyway so being included in anonymised data cannot possibly be a “breach of data privacy”.

There is a reason it has come to this

And that is not to make girls and women feel safer it is so ignorance can not be used to defend their actions

Its absolutely shocking that this even needs to be considered

Two Afghan men it's been reported raped a 14 year old girl in a train to or fromr from Kent in February

It's all very well handing out these phampletts to asylum seekers but what about all the men who run off into the ether and black ecconomy ??

A great number of British 'nationals' of white skin colour, born and bred here also need this so, don't use this as a secret Reform support tactic please

You don't think they already know rape is wrong and illegal, and just do it anyway?

No, the poster must be using the US government as her yardstick for giving less of a shit about random foreigners than about its own citizens, that is all. And where do you see morality in this? Pragmatism, pure pragmatism - no need to import medieval morons whose culture is to abuse women and children by having non-consensual sex with them, that is all.

Deleted

It’s odd how some seem to think that mass migration is the norm and needs defending against people they see as in the wrong. Mass immigration is not the norm. It never has been the norm throughout history, except during episodes openly called invasions. No other society has given away citizenship rights so freely, not even Rome. It’s not something anyone here was given any choice about, it’s not something most people here ever wanted, and it has not worked. The evidence across Europe is clear and mass migration, of men particularly, needs to be stopped.

Well you made most of that up. I said most people aren’t rapists,! becuase most people aren’t rapists. immigrants are people so i count them in with the people.
I also didn’t say a single thing about whether there is differences between countries or not. There may well be cultural differences, that doesn’t change the fact that most people don’t rape other people.

Yes of course europeans can be immigrants, the reason i mention that the data only includes european people is because YOUR claim was

“The attached are 2016 results on % of men who endorse non-consensual sex in at least one of four scenarios”

You said % of MEN.implying that number relates to all men globally. but the data is for EUROPEAN PEOPLE. Those are two entirely different populations.

By your own admission you couldn’t find any global data, so you can’t say “The attached are 2016 results on % of men who endorse non-consensual sex in at least one of four scenarios”.

My claim is based purely on demonstrable evidence that most people are not rapists. If you think most men are rapists that also includes british born men. So then the problem is not immigrantion, but MEN.

Indeed. And looking at Rome, invasion from the Germanic tribes wasn't the only reason it fell, but it was a big contributing factor.
Already weakened, they couldn't expel the Goths who had, ironically, entered the Empire seeking asylum from the Huns. A weakened Rome didn't handle things properly and eventually lost a war to these "New Romans".

Quite the cautionary tale.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(376%E2%80%93382)

I don’t think I’ve even seen so many logical fallacies or just straight errors in two short posts.

What you said was: “The vast majority of immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees are well aware that rape is wrong.”

The thing about most men not being rapists is a different claim (which I agree with btw).

Surely you can see those are two different claims?

And also surely you can see
that the latter claim can be true even if the former is not.

Can’t you?

There might be an outside chance that this argument has been offered up and dealt with at some point in the past 21 pages. Repeatedly.